During the Syrian civil war there has been little harm caused to
the the country’s air defense systems, which continue to function
quite effectively, said Sivkov, who is first vice president of
the Academy of Geopolitical Problems and a former officer of the
General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

Syria is not Libya

Even in Libya, where much weaker air defenses largely remained
inactive, NATO air forces had to waste additional resources to be
sure not to come under fire from ground forces, and this
prevented the invaders from gaining total control of the Libyan
skies, Sivkov said.

The Syrian situation is different altogether, he added.

“The current NATO forces, mostly American, present in the
region cannot do serious harm to the Syrian state and army,”
Sivkov said.

Media reports say that the US Navy has two air carriers with
about 120 jets that could be directly involved in the assault on
Syria. Altogether, NATO has about 280 cruise missiles on warships
and submarines near Syria.

According to Sivkov’s calculations, even without active
countermeasures on the behalf of the Syrian armed forces, this
would be enough for the US-led forces to destroy only about 30 or
35 targets inside the country. In case these targets were
shielded by short-range anti-aircraft systems such as the
Pantsir-S1, the likelihood of targets being destroyed would be
three or four times less.

“That means that at the moment NATO cannot do decisive damage,
changing the balance of power in Syria,” Sivkov said.

“According to my estimates, if NATO wants to destroy Syria’s
military infrastructure and make sure that the Islamists get the
upper hand in the conflict, the alliance needs to concentrate in
the region about three times more air forces and about four times
more cruise missiles. That would be enough to suppress Syria’s
air defenses and destroy its military potential,” Sivkov
said, adding that bringing additional forces to the region would
take Western forces about a month.

‘Syrian air defense crews’ skills are decisive’

Air
Power Australia reported that Syria has about 900
anti-aircraft batteries, over 4,000 MANPADs and around 4,000 air
defense guns. Though most Syrian air defense systems are
outdated, a large number of Soviet-made missile batteries have
been upgraded over the last decade and now have advanced
capabilities.

Moreover, Damascus has recently bought dozens of Russian medium-
and short-range air defense systems, such as the Buk-M2E (NATO
designation SA-17 Grizzly) and the Pantsir-S1 (NATO designation
SA-22 Greyhound).
According to various reports, Syria also possesses an unknown
number of Russian S-300 long-range air defense missile systems.

“Some say S-300s were supplied to Syria from Belarus years
ago, while others insist the delivery happened some time ago from
Russia within the framework of technical-military
cooperation,” Sivkov told RT. “If Syrian personnel have
properly learned how to operate the Russian systems supplied to
the country, than Syrian air defenses can give battle to an
assault by the US Air Force.”

‘Assad real target of NATO airstrikes’

It is not that the Americans do not care about possible losses
among the civilian population in Syria in case of an invasion,
but a new war would mean deaths of American soldiers and
spiraling costs that would lead to social programs inside the US
being slashed, Sivkov said.

Most Americans, over 60 percent, are against
a military operation in Syria, he said, adding that’s why
such US hawks as Zbigniew Brzezinski and John McCain have spoken
out against a ground operation in Syria.

NATO’s strike on Syria would be disguised as a “warning” while
the real targets of the assault would most probably be President
Bashar Assad and other senior figures in his regime, Sivkov said.
He added that if the Americans did put troops in on the ground in
the country, it would lead to a situation like that in
Afghanistan.

While the Americans could invade Syria with the help of Turkey
and Israel, and the Syrian army would be defeated in a month or
two, this would lead to a guerilla war that would have drastic
repercussions for the US and its allies, Sivkov said. Islamist
groups currently fighting against Assad would then turn on the
US, he added.

“As an example of America’s past allies killing their former
friends, you can recall Benghazi, where the US ambassador was
pulled out of the embassy building and slaughtered,” Sivkov
said. “At present, Syria is Iran’s outpost. Syria has already
become a battlefield for the international forces fighting on
both sides. There are Kurdish militia, Hezbollah and Iran’s
volunteers fighting for the country’s president, apart from the
Syrian army.”

But there are practically no Syrians any more among the
opposition forces, Sivkov said, as they are principally made up
of foreign militants and terrorists who openly ally themselves
with such organizations as Al-Qaeda.

‘Total war’ in the Middle East

If there is an attack on Syria and the US enters this war on the
same side as Al-Qaeda against Assad, this would inflame the
whole Middle East, while volunteers from Iran and Iraq, Europe
and probably Orthodox Christians from Russia would join the war
in considerable numbers, Sivkov said.

The Arab states would step in, too, and most likely Shia Muslims
would fight for Assad against the Saudi Arabia-led Sunnis, mostly
from Libya and Egypt, Sivkov said. “Many other states would
join the conflict, and among them Israel, which is certain to
take the side of the [anti-Assad] coalition. If Israel enters the
war against Syria, i. e. allied with Sunni Islamist militants and
initiates strikes on Syria – Iran is likely to respond with
long-range missiles it has. Many forces in the Arab world would
recoil from insurgents in that case, there will be forces that
opt to attack Israel, that’s how the war would engulf the entire
region,” Sivkov said.

If there are NATO missile strikes on chemical munitions depots,
poisonous substances there would be sprayed onto the ground as a
result of explosions, Sivkov said. This would have drastic
consequences, such as contaminating land, and it would be a major
blow to all forms of life on territory extending far from the
strikes, he said.

“If there are airstrikes on chemical weapons depots – this
would be a severe blow to the Syrian people,” Sivkov said.

Fallout from the Arab Spring

As a result of the Arab Spring, the US lost control over all of
the North African regimes they used to have at the time of the
USSR, Sivkov said.

“The Arab dictatorships and monarchies used to seek American
patronage not because of US military power, but because they were
afraid of the Soviet Union. After the USSR collapsed, they found
out that American patronage is of no use to them,” Silkov
told RT, adding that the same applies to European countries and
probably the whole post-WWI Bretton-Woods dollar-based economic
system.

“All this was necessary while the west was collectively
resisting the might of the USSR,” he said. “When the
menace disappeared, US world domination became a burden. By
engineering the Soviet collapse, the US has written itself
off.”